இரண்டு நாட்கள் மற்றும் ஆஸ்திரேலியா நிச்சயமாக மேல் கை உள்ளது. அதனால் என்ன. ஆஷஸ் வென்றது மற்றும் வென்றது. இது ஒரு இறந்த-ரப்பர் போட்டியாகும், ஆஷஸ் வசம் இருந்தபோது, திடீரென ஒரு நல்ல செயல்திறனை தொப்பியில் இருந்து இங்கிலாந்து இழுத்துச் சென்றபோது, ஆஷஸ் தொடரின் பழையதை மிகவும் நினைவூட்டுகிறது.. Players who time and time again let the team down would suddenly grab a five-for or score a century and their series average to the historic observer would look half-decent.
So now the boot is on the other foot. Australia are trying to prove they can actually bat despite all the indications they can’t and a lot of players are playing for their futures. All the plaudits went to Shane Watson yesterday and Steve Smith will get them today. What a load of rubbish. Watson in particular has let his team down a lot. When it mattered he went missing. Smith has been little better throughout the series. All they have managed to do score runs off a bowling attack with only three players bowling to an acceptable international standard and then smash two debutants who looked a little short of international class (Woakes in particular) நான்கு மூலைகளிலும். நல்லது. சிறந்த வாழை. கால, although not true in its literal sense, 'பிளாட் பாதையில் புல்லி' மனதில் தோன்றும்.
Some people have tried to take positives from the Aussie performances this series. மீண்டும், rubbish. சரி, had it not been for the rain in the third test then they would have been in with a good shout of winning (although England have a good recent history when it comes to heroic rear-guard actions) but other than that their batting has simply not been up to scratch. Their bowling has been OK but you can’t win a series without reasonable inputs from both. So many commentators have said: “Oh if it just wasn’t for this session” or “they matched them for most of the game but…” well that’s what test match cricket is about. All teams should be able to compete for decent stretches but the best teams are marked out by winning the vital sessions, taking the key wickets when it matters, scoring the runs when they are needed. England have done that, Australia have not. Just think – other than Bell, England’s batsmen have, by their own high standards, been relatively short of runs. And Prior has had a batting nightmare. If the they had all just made their averages (அனைத்து பட்டியில் பெல் உள்ளன, at the time of writing, probably about 20 runs under their individual averages) then suddenly there’s another 100 அல்லது பலகையில் இயங்கும்.
Maybe a victory for Australia in this test will suddenly thrust the momentum their way for when we start this all over again in a few months time, ஆனால் நான் நம்பிக்கை இருக்க இன்னும் இருக்கிறது.
***
Those knocking the decision to hand Kerrigan and Woakes their international caps are, in my opinion, barking up the wrong tree.
சரி, Woakes in particular is not quite there yet when it comes to possessing the necessary international class for test match cricket and I’ve not yet seen enough of Kerrigan after he was reduced to only 8‑overs on day one. But how will we ever know if they are not given a chance. The view in the minds of the England selectors, சரியாக அல்லது தவறாக, is that these two are worthy of consideration so why not give them the chance in a dead-rubber match which, because of the Aussie’s desire to restore a modicum of pride, retains a competitive edge. Should they have been thrust into the limelight for the first test? இல்லை இருக்கக் கூடாது. Would Tremlett have been picked for this match if the series was all square? ஆமாம் அவர் இருந்திருக்கும். As I previously argued I would have maybe gone even further and given a couple of other lads a chance as well. I’ve not heard a great deal about Woakes but if what people say about Kerrigan is true then it’s highly likely he will emerge much stronger after a difficult start to life as a test cricketer – and that’s got to be good for England because Swann isn’t going to be around for ever. And always remember – Gooch got a pair on his debut. மோசமான அவுட் திரும்ப வில்லை அவன் செய்தவை!
All this talk of debuts got me thinking about how well, or otherwise, the current team did on their debuts. Woakes and Kerrigan are covered but what about the rest?
குக் - மதிப்பெண்களை 60 மற்றும் 104; ரூட் - 73 மற்றும் 20*; Trott — 41 மற்றும் 119; Pieterson - 57 மற்றும் 64*; பெல் - 70; Prior – 126* மற்றும் 21; பிராட் - 1wkt; ஸ்வான் - 4wkts; and Anderson (a 5‑for in the first innings).
So all in all some very good debuts amongst the current crop – especially amongst the batsmen!
மேலும் ஒப்புக்கொள்ள முடியவில்லை. Australia have finally produced a second total of above 300. At the 9வது attempt. In perfect batting conditions. எதிராக 2 புதுமுகமாக. ஆஹா, England must be quaking. For comparison England have passed 300 5 முறை 8 இதுவரை முயற்சிக்கிறது. Despite only Bell showing signs of decent form.
To put it another way — England’s batsmen (inc Prior) have averaged 32.16 in the first 4 சோதனைகள். Australia’s have averaged 28.8 (inc Haddin). So despite the poor form of our batsmen and Pieterson carrying a niggle we’ve STILL outscored their batsmen. We know our bowling attack is better too. Imagine if just 1 குக் இன், Trott or Prior had shown any form.
Of course Australia will do better with a home crowd and home conditions, but they had a better team last time we were there and the score told the story. As someone on TMS said earlier today — England have players who deliver under pressure when they need to, Australia do not.
I don’t agree about the selection though. Picking 2 debutants at once puts too much pressure on them. If we want to give people a chance we have the T‑20, the 1‑day, மற்றும் லயன்ஸ். Test cricket is the pinnacle and players should be picked when they are good enough — like Root was judged to be. Woakes isn’t in that category. Kerrigan could be justified, as long as he was picked alongside Swann and 3 (இல்லை 2) high quality seamers. That way he can be given a bowl at an ideal time against batsmen who aren’t set, அல்லது, better still, saved for the second innings when there is lots of assistance in the pitch.